First self replicating peptide.

[magnifier661]

http://www.lifesorigin.com/self-replicating-molecules-10.pdf

David Lee, suggests that the simplest form of RNA would consist of 32 amino acids.

If this number is true, then the probability of the first self replicating molecule naturally occurring is 10^32 with all necessary soup available.

If the first self replication did exist by natural means; each probable mutation would need roughly (best case scenario and purely hypothetical) 100,000 replication mutations. The reason is in the best case scenario; 1 out of every 100,000 may adapt to the surroundings; keeping all the bad things out of the cell, via cell membrane. If there is a mutation, and the mutation doesn't have the necessary combatants to fend off the outside world; that molecule will die.

The quickest cell reproduction is in forms of bacteria. In an aerobic condition; they can replicate 10 times in 1 minute. In highly oxidized conditions; they can replicate up to 10 times faster.

So in this case and possible scenario; the first molecule may have enough mutations to form a simple organism "ameba" in roughly 1,000,000 years.

From that point; forming the first complex organism would require a much higher probability.

In this scenario; I assume that the natural process of life needed direction. Either it be from intelligent life on another planet or a supreme universe designer; evolution requires direction. At least from what we know today.

 

[Denny Crane]

Evolution requires no direction.

Life imperfectly replicates itself and the result adapts or dies.

You continually refuse to acknowledge that two amoeba might replicate at the same time. Then four. Then eight. And so on. That would accelerate the pace of change dramatically.

Your 1,000,000 year time frame is roughly 1/4500th the age of the earth.

 

[magnifier661]

Evolution requires no direction.

Life imperfectly replicates itself and the result adapts or dies.

You continually refuse to acknowledge that two amoeba might replicate at the same time. Then four. Then eight. And so on. That would accelerate the pace of change dramatically.

Your 1,000,000 year time frame is roughly 1/4500th the age of the earth.

Refusing to acknowledge? Actually I am not refusing it at all. I agree that the moment one ameba replicates; two increase the chances and so on. Now take account that the first forms of life supposedly formed 1,000,000,000 years ago; and work your way up from there.

And what's the 1/4500th number? Isn't the earth 3.5 billion years old? Wouldn't that be 1/3500th?

Also, there was the theorized 2 billion years the earth needed to obtain the primordial soup right? So it's actually 1/2000th of life supporting earth.

 

[Denny Crane]

"So in this case and possible scenario; the first molecule may have enough mutations to form a simple organism "ameba" in roughly 1,000,000 years."

1M would be 1/4500th of the life of Earth. It is 4.5B years old.

And no, the first life on Earth appeared within the first couple hundred million years. Though it's difficult to find fossils because the life had no bones or shell or anything that would resist decay from exposure to the elements.

 

[magnifier661]

"So in this case and possible scenario; the first molecule may have enough mutations to form a simple organism "ameba" in roughly 1,000,000 years."

1M would be 1/4500th of the life of Earth. It is 4.5B years old.

And no, the first life on Earth appeared within the first couple hundred million years. Though it's difficult to find fossils because the life had no bones or shell or anything that would resist decay from exposure to the elements.

Well that's as theoretical as a Flying Spaghetti Monster spitting its sperm on the planet. No evidence or proof of what or when these organisms first developer on this planet?

You would make a good theist with how well you latch on to speculation.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well that's as theoretical as a Flying Spaghetti Monster spitting its sperm on the planet. No evidence or proof of what or when these organisms first developer on this planet?

You would make a good theist with how well you latch on to speculation.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there is every reason to expect life to form as soon as the earth cooled enough and there was water. And there's plenty of evidence of rocks being formed 4.3B years ago, and under water.

 

[Further]

The first actual proof of life on earth are these fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites found in what would now be considered Australia. These stromatolites are 3.4billion years old. Scientists can then take the complexity of that finding, along with other findings such as the atmosphere that would be needed to sustain that type of life, and make a well reasoned hypothesis that evolution would have needed to have been going on for a certain amount of time already. Which hypothesis you subscribe to will somewhat affect when one would date the first life on earth, but likely somewhere between 4.3billion and 3.9billion years ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure enough. GOD only knows!

 

[magnifier661]

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there is every reason to expect life to form as soon as the earth cooled enough and there was water. And there's plenty of evidence of rocks being formed 4.3B years ago, and under water.

Lmao!!!! I was talking about your speculation of life existing x amount of years. Did I argue the age of earth? I assumed 3.5 billion years. You threw out spaghetti monster sperm speculation about life without proof of fossils.

 

[Denny Crane]

And GOD posted why you don't need proof of fossils.

Just like you don't need proof to know someone built your house. It's there, it took some time to build.

 

[magnifier661]

The first actual proof of life on earth are these fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites found in what would now be considered Australia. These stromatolites are 3.4billion years old. Scientists can then take the complexity of that finding, along with other findings such as the atmosphere that would be needed to sustain that type of life, and make a well reasoned hypothesis that evolution would have needed to have been going on for a certain amount of time already. Which hypothesis you subscribe to will somewhat affect when one would date the first life on earth, but likely somewhere between 4.3billion and 3.9billion years ago.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9548

Abstract
The ≈3,450-million-year-old Strelley Pool Formation in Western Australia contains a reef-like assembly of laminated sedimentary accretion structures (stromatolites) that have macroscale characteristics suggestive of biological influence. However, direct microscale evidence of biology—namely, organic microbial remains or biosedimentary fabrics—has to date eluded discovery in the extensively-recrystallized rocks. Recently-identified outcrops with relatively good textural preservation record microscale evidence of primary sedimentary processes, including some that indicate probable microbial mat formation.

This fossil sediment had a "probable" microbial mat formation. This finding suggests that this fossil; not being of microbial origin, could have been microbial supporting. That isn't a fossil of an actual organism.

There is nothing in this finding that supports life that long ago. It's just the probability of "IF there is life, this would be the best place to colonize.

 

[magnifier661]

And GOD posted why you don't need proof of fossils.

Just like you don't need proof to know someone built your house. It's there, it took some time to build.

That isn't an organism brother. It's the probable location for life to exist.

 

[magnifier661]

And people; I'm not saying one way or another. God doesn't have to be involved here. Just questioning some sort of conscious designer. It could be ET peeps!

 

[Further]

It is not an organism in that no fossil is, but it is the evidence that there were stromatolites, which are not areas that life can live, it is life. That is cyanobacteria.

My other post was off of memory, but I had to check when you contradicted me. Hohttp://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

 

[crandc]

http://www.lifesorigin.com/self-replicating-molecules-10.pdf

David Lee, suggests that the simplest form of RNA would consist of 32 amino acids.

What??????
RNA consists of nucleotides.
Proteins consist of amino acids.

Amboebae are highly complex organisms. Unicellular, yes, but a very complex cell, even when compared to the most complex bacteria.

The quickest cell reproduction is in forms of bacteria. In an aerobic condition; they can replicate 10 times in 1 minute. In highly oxidized conditions; they can replicate up to 10 times faster.

Good grief. Many bacteria are obligatory anaerobes. They DIE in the presence of oxygen. And while bacteria may have the quickest organism reproduction, they don't necessarily have the quickest cell reproduction.

A natural process of life needs no direction. Denny is absolutely right, mutations are accidents, some by chance give an individual a survival/reproductive advantage. Life and evolution have no direction at all and did not move "towards" anything.

In sum, the article seems to have been written by someone who never even had (or has totally forgotten) high school biology.

 

[magnifier661]

What??????
RNA consists of nucleotides.
Proteins consist of amino acids.

Amboebae are highly complex organisms. Unicellular, yes, but a very complex cell, even when compared to the most complex bacteria.



Good grief. Many bacteria are obligatory anaerobes. They DIE in the presence of oxygen. And while bacteria may have the quickest organism reproduction, they don't necessarily have the quickest cell reproduction.

A natural process of life needs no direction. Denny is absolutely right, mutations are accidents, some by chance give an individual a survival/reproductive advantage. Life and evolution have no direction at all and did not move "towards" anything.

In sum, the article seems to have been written by someone who never even had (or has totally forgotten) high school biology.

I deal with hundreds of aerobic bacteria in my line of work. You can find many in the soil you dig up. That article is by a well renown researcher. I think you've got it all wrong.

Did you see the amino acid chain on the link? You might want to read the research before you post. He doesn't say natural life is impossible. He is just stating the simplest life form could reproduce at this amino acid chain.

He even openly admits that this chain wouldn't function optimally.

 

[magnifier661]

It is not an organism in that no fossil is, but it is the evidence that there were stromatolites, which are not areas that life can live, it is life. That is cyanobacteria.

My other post was off of memory, but I had to check when you contradicted me. Hohttp://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

The link you've provided says the same thing.

Stromatolites and their close cousins the thrombolites, are rock-like buildups of microbial mats that form in limestone- or dolostone-forming environments. Together with oncoids (formerly called "algal biscuits" or "Girvanella"), they typically form by the baffling, trapping, and precipitation of particles by communities of microorganisms such as bacteria and algae. In some cases, they can form inorganically, for example when seawaters are oversaturated with certains chemicals resulting in precipitation. Stromatolites are defined as laminated accretionary structures that have synoptic relief (i.e., they stick up above the seafloor). Stromatolite-building communities include the oldest known fossils, dating back some 3.5 billion years when the environments of Earth were too hostile to support life as we know it today. [bold]We can presume[/bold] that the microbial communities consisted of complex consortia of species with diverse metabolic needs, and that competition for resources and differing motility among them created the intricate structures we observe in these ancient fossils. Microbial communities diversified through time, with eukaryotic organisms eventually joining the mix.

They are saying what organisms can live there. The fossils aren't the organisms.

 

[Denny Crane]

The fossils aren't the organism. They're just the organisms' landfill.

 

[magnifier661]

The fossils aren't the organism. They're just the organisms' landfill.

But that's what I've been trying to say. Fossils don't indicate life, unless its actual skeleton Fossils. It's the probable location of life dating back at that age. It doesn't support that there was life there.

 

[Further]

The fossils aren't the organism. They're just the organisms' landfill.

That's how I'm reading it too. Without organisms, the stromatolites would not exist. There may or may not be organisms living in the stromatolites at a point in time, but they exist only because of organisms.

 

[tlongII]

Sorry mags, but you got PWNED!

 

[Further]

Sorry mags, but you got PWNED!

Not at all, he is trying to understand something, so we are discussing it. Like adults.

And quite frankly, his misinterpretation was very easy to make, the language being used is unnecessarily verbose and confusing.

 

[crandc]

I deal with hundreds of aerobic bacteria in my line of work. You can find many in the soil you dig up. That article is by a well renown researcher. I think you've got it all wrong.

Did you see the amino acid chain on the link? You might want to read the research before you post. He doesn't say natural life is impossible. He is just stating the simplest life form could reproduce at this amino acid chain.

He even openly admits that this chain wouldn't function optimally.

You are correct about the article, it seems legit. My comments reference your comments.
I said anaerobic bacteria. You might want to read my post before you post.

 

[magnifier661]

You are correct about the article, it seems legit. My comments reference your comments.
I said anaerobic bacteria. You might want to read my post before you post.

But my post was about aerobic bacteria.

Also this is what you wrote...

What??????
RNA consists of nucleotides.

In sum, the article seems to have been written by someone who never even had (or has totally forgotten) high school biology.

You questioned the article no?

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry mags, but you got PWNED!

Pwned about what? I questioned what I read. Maybe you should do the same.

Also this has nothing to do with a young earth argument. I am questioning the evolution being guided by a director. It could have been billions of years ago and it really doesn't make a difference.

Seems you jumped too quickly

 

[tlongII]

Pwned about what? I questioned what I read. Maybe you should do the same.

Also this has nothing to do with a young earth argument. I am questioning the evolution being guided by a director. It could have been billions of years ago and it really doesn't make a difference.

Seems you jumped too quickly

PWNAGE!

 

[magnifier661]

PWNAGE!

I got pwned like the beavers every year! Now I know what it feels like to be a osu beavers fan.